Parental alienation involves the systematic brainwashing, poisoning and manipulation of children with the sole purpose of destroying a loving and warm relationship they once shared with a parent. My story involves this form of child abuse & exploring the bias favouring a mother in the social ecosystem around Family Law.

I have met and heard the tragic stories of many parents. PA is a function, by and large, of a custodial ex-partner, although some alienation can start while the couple is still together.

This blog is a story of experiences and observations of dysfunctional Family Law (FLAW), an arena pitting parent against parent, with children as the prize. Due to the gender bias in Family Law, that I have observed, this Blog has evolved from a focus solely on PA to one of the broader Family/Children's Rights area and the impact of Feminist mythology on Canadian Jurisprudence and the Divorce Industry.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

If the reports are to be believed, Women’s Studies programs are disappearing at many Canadian universities. Forgive us for being skeptical. We would wave good-bye without shedding a tear, but we are pretty sure these angry, divisive and dubious programs are simply being renamed to make them appear less controversial.
The radical feminism behind these courses has done untold damage to families, our court systems, labour laws, constitutional freedoms and even the ordinary relations between men and women.

Women’s Studies courses have taught that all women — or nearly all — are victims and nearly all men are victimizers. Their professors have argued, with some success, that rights should be granted not to individuals alone, but to whole classes of people, too. This has led to employment equity — hiring quotas based on one’s gender or race rather than on an objective assessment of individual talents.

Executives, judges and university students must now sit through mandatory diversity training. Divorcing men find they lose their homes and access to their children, and must pay much of their income to their former spouses (then pay tax on the income they no longer have) largely because Women’s Studies activists convinced politicians that family law was too forgiving of men. So now a man entering court against a woman finds the deck stacked against him, thanks mostly to the radical feminist jurisprudence that found it roots and nurture in Women’s Studies.

The equality protection before and under the law, granted to all Canadians regardless of race, sex, creed or origin, has been eroded because feminist legal scholars convinced the Supreme Court to permit preferential treatment for “traditionally disadvantaged groups,” chief among whom, they contend, are women.

Over the years, Women’s Studies scholars have argued all heterosexual sex is oppression because its “penetrative nature” amounts to “occupation.” They have insisted that no male author had any business writing novels from women’s perspectives; although, interestingly, they have not often argued the converse — that female writers must avoid telling men’s stories.

They have pushed for universal daycare and mandatory government-run kindergarten, advocated higher taxes to pay for vast new social entitlements and even put forward the notion that the only differences between males and females are “relatively insignificant, external features.” All other differences are said to be the result of patriarchal brainwashing. So the only way to ensure gender equality is to turn over all education to the state, where professionals can ensure only unbiased instruction.

In sum, there would be little of rational worth left even if Women’s Studies were to disappear. Yet despite all the handwringing by the programs’ supporters, are the worst elements of Women’s programs really disappearing or just being renamed? Are the professors different? Has the basic philosophy behind the program changed? Has the curriculum been altered?
In most cases the answer is no. Little has changed but the nomenclature.
While we’d like to cheer and say “Good riddance,” we’re certain such celebration would be premature.

Let me get the popcorn this is going to be good. The nonsensical loons will be out in full force. Of course we know not all wimmin are like that we have Sassie Lassie. You loons couldn't carry her jock strap, err, perhaps I should rephrase. by Sassylassie

Jan 26 2010
3:39 PM

What a delightful article, sadly the feminists' decided being a stay at home mom had no merit and to do so denoted "Low intellect" and "Low brow" thus many women felt obligated to work to boost their self esteem. The feminists help expand the ethos of a "Fatherless society" combine their demended ethos with cradal to to grave welfare they've succeeded in spreading their anti-male propaganda so efficiently there are children who have never had a male role model to look up to we call those communities ethnic ghettos. The damage their demented agenda did is astrynomical but they'll never admit mia culpa, why should they the government panders to these groups for acceptance.
Tossed got a rain coat the spit is going to fly. by Skulldug

Jan 26 2010
3:39 PM

I was lucky to have been raised surrounded by strong, gentle, capable women. It never even entered my mind that they could be somehow less of a person than me until I began to hear the radical feminists bleating that women needed "special" status, protection, opportunity etc. Their entire movement degrades real women and classifies them as roughly equivalent to baby seals.
These vindictive females should all be charged with hate crimes, even though their target is the last acceptable bigotry in Canada. At least, that's what my Mom, sister and aunties say. by Aidanist

Jan 26 2010
3:41 PM

I'm not a fan of women's studies, but I do like accuracy: the Charter is the reason judges must consider disadvantaged groups and women specifically, not women's studies advocates or professors. There are two separate sections of the Charter that protect some affirmative action measures and specify gender as something that cannot be discriminated against.
Also, there are few Women's Studies authors that have preached the "all sex is rape" philosophy, and I think the only one who got any traction was Mackinnon - and even she is misquoted by her opponents.
I don't really agree with the rest, and I think your editorial over-generalizes their support for new programs or the difference that support might make (who cares what they think anyway?), but I just thought those inaccuracies might need clarification. by Peter Alward

Jan 26 2010
3:44 PM

Hold it! What about the Ivory Tower? Are you now telling us that professors have real impact on Canadian society, (albeit malevolent impact)? Or is it just those uppity women who know where the key to the Tower door (gate?) is hidden? by Tossed Salad

Jan 26 2010
3:52 PM

Thanks Sassie I got it along with the popcorn. Knowing you would be commenting on this I had it at the ready. by Rectificatif

Jan 26 2010
4:04 PM

First, news from the war zone.
This week, CBC radio in Alberta is running a series on 'domestic violence'. Said series started off cautiously, with a social worker who claimed, correctly, that the vast majority of the cases that "went through the justice system" were of male violence. But he did not report that the vast majority of male victims of (female) spousal abuse *do not report it to police* which is why only the female victims get to court in the first place.
Then, today, a female police officer referred to all putative victims as "she." Said police officer then admitted, with pride, that she was the child of a mother murdered by an abusing father, and that she had entered the policing role, essentially, to avenge her mother. Oh, that's a useful bias, isn't it, especially for the 50% of actual abuse victims who are fathers, not mothers.
Secondly, I wish to commend the NP for its restraint, especially in the language it uses. To refer to "Women's studies scholars" and even to "feminist professors" is to err on the side of elaborate courtesy.
In actuality, there's no such thing as "scholarship" among the feminists. Every bit of these "studies" and even the novels that reflect it, is blantant cherry-picking of data to construct an anti-male world view, with the awowed aim of "seeing the word through feminist eyes."
Finally, a sampler of the more subtle effects. Calgary Herald ran an editorial yesterday exploring the virtues of unisex education in the middle schools. Said editorial explored ways in which boys might be taught in all-boys classes. We currently know, for fact, that many boys are disadvantaged in our grossly feminized educational system.
As an example of sex-segregated education, it said that the boys might learn "art" and "drama" better in unisex classes.
That's right, folks. Female teachers, crudely anti-male, better able to teach your sons how to do the female-identified subjects better.
So, would it even occur to the editorialists that there is virtue in the male-identified subjects? Or, how persistent and systemic anti-male policy really is? by hunter902

Jan 26 2010
4:10 PM

Lol...glad there's at least one media outlet that isn't afraid to put the truth out there. I could get on board with "Womens' Studies" if it were something that brought to light the many women who have achieved extraordinary goals. But to excorciate almost all men to somehow elevate their superiority ABOVE men is doing a grave injustice and disservice to all men and women of all generations. Long ago, the movement ceased to be about equality, and turned into a man-hating extravaganza.
Going thru university, my daughter said she was glad to have taken the course, but appreciated the fact that she didn't have to subscribe to the man-hating subtext in the course because of the way she was raised to believe all people were equal. I asked her if she thought others in the class were prone to thinking the same way, and sadly she remarked that most bought into how they are still "victimized" by men in anything they try and do.
At one point, when a class discussion around the sins of men became far too brutal for her, she stood up and asked them all if their fathers, brothers, uncles, and grandfathers were to be included in this group of horrible men. Apparently, it got very quiet in the room. I told her then that I couldn't be more proud.
Womens' Studies as it is now serves to keep women as victims, rather than encourage them to be strong and tolerant, as they who create this, pretend it to be. by BWA

Jan 26 2010
4:17 PM

It is sad to see how malignant the feminist movement has become. It started out to achieve something good for women and achieved it. I think the biggest cause of the malignancy was the rise of liberalism in the Trudeau years that began to feed this tumor with government funding. When the money started flowing the "screech-hags" of hate and intolerance saw that they could turn their cause into an industry of victimology and male bashing. When you push a cause beyond "saturation point" you have to keep pushing the envelope to keep it in the public eye. This is why the feminist ideology has become so distorted. This is the reason most young women today are not interested in the the stuff that the feminist movement is promoting. Indeed they have caused a lot of damage and now we have to pick up the pieces and try to bring back some sense of balance. Perhaps we should end all funding to these groups and start male studies in the high schools and universities!

by justcommonsense

Jan 26 2010
4:18 PM

Women's Studies are not disappearing or even changing that much. But take a look around you. The new role models for young women are not the feminists of old. They are Brittany Spears, Amy Winehouse and Lady Ga Ga. Women's Studies are drowning in a sea of irrelevence and the only thing keeping them going are the aging tenured professors who have their jobs for life

by littlerunninggag

Jan 26 2010
4:21 PM

"The feminists help expand the ethos of a "Fatherless society" combine their demended ethos with cradal to to grave welfare they've succeeded in spreading their anti-male propaganda so efficiently there are children who have never had a male role model to look up to we call those communities ethnic ghettos."
Did you actually just say that feminism causes 'ethnic ghettos'?
Can you please explain how feminism causes poverty within ethnic minority groups? Bonus points if you can manage it without sounding incredibly bigoted. by Rectificatif

Jan 26 2010
4:40 PM

Aidanist is a sceptic here (I won't say Denier!). But Aidanist does not take it all in.
The word "rape" may not be associated with the word "sex" in the McKinninist fashion, as often as the editorial suggests. However, ALL sex is associated, by Women's Studies, with POWER. And ALL power relations are COERCIVE. And the male has more physical power than the female, and then, there's "penetraton." And therefore, the idea of rape is implicit in all of heterosexuality in all of feminist ideology. At best, having sex with a man is a sort of condescension to passion and to males.
Secondly, Aidanist might not appreciate the genesis of these "studies." They come from lesbian authors, not "feminist scholars." They are very often taught by lesbian faculty. If not, they are taught by lesbian-compliant faculty -- even by males who are selected for their ideological subservience to anti-male ideology.
And therefore the bias is not only anti-male, it's anti-heterosexual; and millions of young women go through these "studies."

All humanities curricula, whatever the discipline, contain what's called "theory," in essence, a training in the examination of culture as ideology. Said "theory" classes give GROSS priority of place and of authority to feminism, much of it clearly anti-male. And millions of young women go through this.
Aidanist must view the film (or play) "Oleana" by David Mamet. Mamet's language is highly stylized and so the film seems stiff and un-real; however, the situation that his play posits is not only real, it happens on campuses every week.

by seekingtruth

Jan 26 2010
5:24 PM

I need a good laugh, where's mel and icon?

by ScndVrs

Jan 26 2010
5:30 PM

Rectificatif is right about "Oleana." See it.

by Tossed Salad

Jan 26 2010
5:56 PM

seekingtruth said:
I need a good laugh, where's mel and icon?
******************************
Still crying in their beer from last weeks loss in the election in Massachusetts.

by arbyburns

Jan 26 2010
6:56 PM

aidinist -
*I'm not a fan of women's studies, but I do like accuracy*
Well, then, Aiden, you won't like what's below...
*the Charter is the reason judges must consider disadvantaged groups and women specifically, not women's studies advocates or professors. There are two separate sections of the Charter that protect some affirmative action measures and specify gender as something that cannot be discriminated against.*
Nothing at all in the charter says that it must `favour so-called disadvantaged groups' - as, of course, the second clause you cite would put paid to any such Women's Studies-fostered `reading into' the CoR.
As it is, judges disregard the Charter outright, as much as they apply it, in their version of `judicial activism' (i.e. judicial autocracy).
A few years ago, for instance, the SCOC ruled that law could ban `third-party' advertising during election time, even tho. such a ban was explicitly contrary to the CoR.
Their reasoning? It was all for `electoral fairness'.
In other words, a completely made up `right to electoral fairness' trumped the rights in the Charter, as you say, `that are actually there.'
Some Osgoode Hall student just got a fail, i'm afraid.
Read more: network.nationalpost.com/.../national-post-editorial-board-women-s-studies-is-still-with-us.aspx
The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

by Denis Pakkala

Jan 26 2010
11:57 PM

Fantastic editorial and absolutely accurate. Rectificatif, as always, provides a further indepth analysis and insight.
The end of "women's studies" or discriminatory feminists is nowhere in sight. These programs are being re-labelled as "gender studies" with the same misandrist academic bias.
Cutting funding to all feminist special interest groups (SOW) and media outlets (CBC!) would be a good start.
The radical feminists recently have become less vocal in defense of their privilege, they are avoiding debate altogether. There is far too much research (ignored by the msm) that exposes their bigotry.
Judges, Lawyers, Politicians, Police, Social Workers and Teachers are all trained in the feminist ideology that women are victims of men.
We are witnessing the demise of a moral, ethical and just society. Why aren't more people speaking out?

by MikeMurphy

Jan 27 2010
12:06 AM

I did a blog post awhile back based on Barbara Kay's appearance on the CBC Radio show 'The Current' discussing this very thing. Barbara so out classed the Toronto Red Star reporter, also on with her, the host had to arrange to get another feminist ideologue on later that week to counteract Barbara's forceful and correct views. The link to the radio interview is here: www.cbc.ca/.../20100112.html

"In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent."
Catherine MacKinnon

"Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism."
Catherine MacKinnon" Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (First Harvard University Press, 1989), p.10
Wednesday, January 20, 2010

The Rebranding of Women's Studies Courses in Academia
An interesting discussion occurred on the CBC's The Current radio show recently between the host and two journalists.

In the radio interview Barbara Kay will argue these courses are recruitment mechanisms into an ideology of feminism. The Toronto Star Reporter, Catherine Porter will whine about women not being representative in positions like partners in law firms and that same old argument Parliament. She will posit these courses are designed to get fresh ideas so women can have it all, a career, motherhood, vacations and maybe even a husband. Barbara will describe it as the Utopian ideal. Marxism was one of those same Utopian ideologies from whence feminism came.

What Porter fails to realize is women can have these things but only if they get a partner who will look after the children and is prepared to make the same sacrifices as a man by working long days and commuting great distances. The other option is to stay single and get a nanny or not have any children at all. There are choices but what Porter really means is lets just appoint a certain number of women to these positions (the old quota game) so they don't have to do it on merit and then they can have it all. Nothing much has changed in the feminist song book despite the much larger proportion of degrees granted to females over males. Its still an entitlement mentality and women deserve to be placed on a pedestal.

Recruiting feminists must be losing its appeal at Canadian Universities so the resident feminist faculty are trying to lure new recruits by new marketing techniques. When a business wants to refresh its product it assigns the
"New and Improved Label". The professional feminists in academia are re-branding, re-positioning and trying to attract men too would you believe. They aren't necessarily pushing masculinity mind you but if you are male and gay you may just qualify as part of the "gender" portion of the re-branding. If you are a transsexual or transvestite you qualify. Have you seen the label they use for the gay community now. It is LGBT or is an initialism referring collectively to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. You all may qualify for study along with women. That opens up to a larger more inclusive audience - doesn't it? If you are a male - does that increase your interest?

At McGill University in Montreal the new branding in March 2009 gives us the name
McGill Institute for Gender, Sexuality, and Feminist Studies (IGSF)
"The McGill Institute for Gender, Sexuality, and Feminist Studies (IGSF) examines social perspectives on women and women's contributions to society."

You see the emphasis is on women but it is hoped the new name will attract more men and women of different sexualities and diversities.

Here is a sampling of these courses:
WMST 200 (3) Introduction to Women's Studies . Offered in the: Fall
This course introduces students to theoretical positions and topical issues in the broad, interdisciplinary field of Women’s Studies. This course aims to demonstrate how “women” is applied as a social and political category imbued with certain, yet contested meanings depending on place and time, and cannot usefully be considered a self-evident effect of biology. Students are introduced to a great variety of analytical tools and topical intersections that will enable them to entangle seemingly natural and obvious truth claims regarding the meanings of gender, sex, sexuality, and feminism in contemporary societies. In addition to key academic texts, we will look at online material, view films and podcasts, and discuss news stories on matters such as gay marriage, sex trafficking, ‘hook up’ cultures, and creative new reproductive strategies.
Elisabeth Engebretsen
MWF 1:35-2:25 pm

The question remains - what do you do with a degree in women's studies after its all said and done? The purpose of the re-branding is to attract more students to keep the programs alive. There are only so many tax supported professional feminist jobs out there and with government cutbacks on the horizon they will be fewer in number. by Les Bolschitt

Jan 27 2010
12:08 AM

Tooooo funny.
"Women’s Studies scholars have argued all heterosexual sex is oppression because its “penetrative nature” amounts to “occupation.”

My research into feminism clearly shows we are ruled by a very large number of eunuchs (the so-called Patriarchy) who actually take their orders - more than less - from their wives. We do not see legislation like shared parenting, despite the majority of Parliamentarians being male, because they are afraid of feminist backlash, not to mention bar associations who perceive they will lose business by not having the adversarial court room to pit parent against parent and bleed the financial heritage of the fought over children from their parent's pocket books.

Bar Associations have their own feminist divisions who get tax money to lobby against this kind of legislation. I always find it an interesting perspective to see my tax dollars going to rich lawyers to lobby against legislation that would be in the best interest of children.

Favourite Quotes

“The job of a father is this : to help his children develop, to teach them to express and master their emotions; to avoid physiological distress, to provide a context for their experiences; to help them persevere, reach their goals and take on responsibilities; and to instil the roles of citizen, partner and parent. In short, it is to fill their bellies with bread, their brains with wisdom and their hearts with love and courage.” Camil Bouchard, “On Father’s Ground” 2002.

Some men see things as they are and say, "Why?" I dream of things that never were and say, "Why not?" ~ George Bernard Shaw ~ also quoted by Robert F. Kennedy, US Senator and Presidential Candidate assassinated in 1968.

Happiness makes up in height for what it lacks in length. ~ Robert Frost

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. - Mahatma Gandhi

Search my blogs with a custom keyword search by Google

Eastern Standard Time - North America

Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario

Western Australia (DST from last Sunday in Oct. to last Sunday in March)

Perth, Western Australia

Some Gems on relationships

Marriage is a relationship in which one person is always right, and the other is a husband.

The motto of this Father's Rights Activist

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood who strives valiantly, who errs and comes short again and again ... and who, at the worst, if he fails at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat." Theodore Roosevelt,

Facts on violence in Canada Domestic and Otherwise

Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile, 2009.

Of the nearly 19 million Canadians who had a current or former spouse in 2009, 6.2% or 1.2 million reported they had been victimized physically or sexually by their partner or spouse during the five years prior to the survey. This proportion was stable from 2004 (6.6%), the last time the victimization survey was conducted, and down from 1999 (7.4%).

A similar proportion of men and women reported experiencing spousal violence during the five years prior to the survey. Among men, 6.0% or about 585,000, encountered spousal violence during this period, compared with 6.4% or 601,000 women.

Total 611, men 465, women 146Rate of homicides with firearms has increased 24% since 2002. Handgun use on increase (gangs don't register their weapons)Women victims 24% - lowest proportion everMen Victims 76%Both the rate of females killed (0.87 per 100,000 population), as well as the proportion(24%), were the lowest since 196162 spousal homicides - no change from 2007Lowest rate in 40 years45 women 17 (27.4%)men

Many DV homicides of men are not classified as such and this number is higher than 27.4%.

In 2009 based on a million couples it can fairly be said 999,998 wives do not kill their husbands and 999,995 husbands do not kill their wives. (See Pg. 15 chart modified from the rate per 100,000.)

In 2009, 49 women and 15 men were killed by a current or former spouse (excludes one same-sex spousal victim).

Total homicides 610, Men 450. Gang related 20.3 percent.69.1 % of firearm related deaths involved handgunsWomen 160, In 2009 it represented the second lowest proportion (26%) of female homicide victims since data were first collected. The rate of female victims has generally been declining since the late 1960s.

Profile

I am Politically active and right of centre on most issues with the odd exception such as legalization of "Mary Jane".
I advocate on changes to Family Law - an incredibly dysfunctional arena where parents are pitted against one another and children are the victims.
My picture will sometimes show me as a younger man simply because I like them.

An Alienated Child

Is a troubled child

American Coalition for Fathers & Children Petition

A quote by a well known Canadian Jurist

The Honorable Justice John Gomery of Canada stated, “Hatred is not an emotion that comes naturally to a child. It has to be taught. A parent who would teach a child to hate the other parent represents a grave and persistent danger to the mental and emotional health of that child.”

(The above quote arises from PSM vs. AJC, a decision rendered by Mr. Justice John Gomery on February 15 1991 (SCM 500-12-184613895), and confirmed by the unanimous judgment of the Court of Appeal on June 14 1991, the trial judge was confronted by a case involving four children caught up in a heated custody battle between their parents whereby the children became "catastrophically" alienated from their mother.)A good paper on PAS for lawyers by a lawyer, Anne-France Goldwater (Avocate), and excerpts from the above trial are located here.